Bibliographic record
Abstract
This account of practice discusses how we use action learning (AL) sets as part of the supervision process for quality improvement (QI) projects in healthcare. Reflecting on the synergies between QI and AL reveals that the questioning approach of both links closely with the Calgary Cambridge Communication model, taught in medicine, to guide medical interviews. While the Calgary Cambridge communication model provides the student with a framework in gathering a patient medical history, action learning helps them focus their attention on the type of questions they ask, active listening, and most importantly, reflecting on questions from their peers on their quality improvement projects. The student groups in this example are Physician Associates, also known as Physician Assistants in some countries, and are a new profession, recently introduced in Ireland. Communication skills might be the most important skill for healthcare workers to acquire, in order to ensure good patient outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".